BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 116
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 116 (Bocanegra)
As Amended March 20, 2013
2/3 vote. Urgency
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 9-0 HOUSING
7-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Achadjian, Levine, Alejo, |Ayes:|Torres, Beth Gaines, |
| |Bradford, Gordon, | |Atkins, Brown, Chau, |
| |Melendez, Mullin, | |Maienschein, Mullin |
| |Waldron, Bonta | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, Ian Calderon, | | |
| |Campos, Donnelly, Eggman, | | |
| |Gomez, Hall, Holden, | | |
| |Linder, Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Wagner, Weber | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends, by 24 months, the expiration date of
specified subdivision maps that will expire prior to January 1,
2016. Specifically, this bill :
1)Extends by 24 months the expiration date of any approved
tentative map, vesting tentative map, or a parcel map for
which a tentative map or vesting map has been approved and
does not expire before January 1, 2016.
2)Extends the expiration date by 24 months for any legislative,
administrative or other approval by a state agency relating to
a development project in a subdivision affected by this bill.
3)Provides that determination for extension to subdivision maps
takes into account previous discretionary extensions, but not
include extensions because of litigation and moratoria.
AB 116
Page 2
4)Reduces the time limits that a city, county, or city and
county cannot add additional requirements on a building permit
after a final map is recorded, from five years to three years
after the recordation, if the map is extended under using the
provisions of this measure.
5)Specifies that maps extended under the provisions of this
measure are not prohibited from having a city, county, or city
and county impose a condition that requires the payment of a
fee in the amount in effect upon the issuance of a building
permit, as specified.
6)Provides that no reimbursement is required because a local
agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the
program or level of service mandated by the bill's provisions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Map Act), a
statewide regulatory framework for controlling the subdividing
of land, which generally requires a subdivider to submit, and
have approved by the city, county, or city and county in which
the land is situated, a tentative map.
2)Provides for the expiration of tentative maps after specified
periods of time.
3)Authorizes cities and counties to grant discretionary map
extensions as specified.
4)Extends the expiration date by 24 months for specified
subdivision maps that will expire before January 1, 2014.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, there are no state costs. Local costs for extending
expiration dates, if any, would not be reimbursable because
local agencies have authority to levy fees and charges to cover
their costs.
COMMENTS : Cities and counties, pursuant to the Map Act, approve
tentative maps that must be consistent with their general plans,
attaching scores of conditions. Once subdividers comply with
those conditions, local officials must issue final maps. For
AB 116
Page 3
smaller subdivisions (lot splits) local officials usually use
parcel maps, but they can require tentative parcel maps followed
by final parcel maps. These maps follow statutory expiration
dates.
The housing industry saw a major decline in the early 1990s.
Because of the difficulty of securing financing, many projects
for which maps had already been approved were set to expire,
which would have required developers to go through the
entitlement process again. To aid in the recovery, SB 428
(Thompson), Chapter 407, Statutes of 1993, granted a one-time
24-month extension for tentative and parcel maps that had not
expired as of the enacting legislation's chaptering date of
September 13, 1993.
The Legislature has approved seven such map extension bills
since SB 428, the most recent of which was AB 208 (Fuentes),
Chapter 88, Statutes of 2011. That bill extended the expiration
date by 24 months for any tentative map, vesting tentative map,
or parcel map for which a tentative map or tentative vesting map
has been approved prior to January 1, 2014.
The author notes that "in response to crippling economic crisis,
the Legislature took emergency action to extend tentative tract
maps, and as a result of those bills, homebuilding experienced a
steady and level recovery beginning in the latter 1990s.
Homebuilders were able to return to their dormant subdivision
maps and move forward with their projects and avoid having to
begin anew an expensive, time consuming and complicated
entitlement process."
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) has a
"Support if Amended" position on the bill. CSAC notes their
support for the 24-month map extensions for more recently
approved maps. However, CSAC writes that the bill, if enacted,
"would enact the eighth automatic map extension since 1990?some
unexpired tentative maps may be upwards of 18 years old." CSAC
believes that another two-year extension on such old maps could
prevent local governments from meeting goals and priorities
established after original map approval, as well as comply with
many new mandates that local agencies must now consider in
approving a map. CSAC requests amendments that would provide an
automatic extension of 24 months to maps that are 12 years or
younger at the effective date of the extension, and provide an
AB 116
Page 4
extension at the discretion of the county or city for maps that
are 12 years or older at the effective date of the extension,
with tolling for those applications with maps that have been
under litigation.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that this bill captures and
extends the life of a significant portion of the nearly 3,000
approved tentative tract and parcel maps in the state, which
represents hundreds of construction projects, thousands of
construction jobs and billions of dollars directly to state and
local coffers.
Opposition arguments: The Legislature may wish to consider
whether the extension should apply to older maps or whether
there is an appropriate time limit that could be put in place to
provide for necessary local agency review to ensure that maps
are consistent with current local planning documents.
This bill is an urgency measure and requires a two-thirds vote
of each house.
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958
FN: 0000489